Jim Hightower is Correct

Jim Hightower is apparently often quoted for saying "Politics isn't about left versus right; it's about top versus bottom." Of course, I hadn't heard or read the quote until recently when he was chosen as the winner of the 2009 Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship.

I first read about Jim Hightower around a year ago, in one or more books I was reading at the time. I know, I've been asleep, obviously. Then, while perusing through a Big Lots store, I saw one of his books stacked unappealingly amongst other books (Big Lots offers some good books, and for only $3 dollars, but some of the stores could care less about selling them from the looks of the display). The book is called "Let's Stop Beating Around the Bush," the focus on whom you should easily grasp. It's a fun book, coupled with hard facts presented in a laid back, humorous manner, so to me, it's the kind of book you keep in your bathroom.

Imagine, in my bathroom I discovered the quote in The Nation magazine a few days ago in the December 7, 2009 issue. Well, I guess I didn't really discover it, I rather, read what others thought was an outstanding statement. The quote has really got me thinking. Combine it with Dennis Kucinich's (D-OH) recent lashing out against former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum on FOX News' "On the Record," concerning the constant initiative of politicians and pundits to turn every issue into a "left and right issue," and I'm sold. Not only is the incessant blame of everything on each party coming from the opposite side useless, it's a facade, and a facade that needs wiped off the screen, and cleared out of our ears. Let's look at two major issues of the day: wall street bailouts and health care reform.

Before George W. Bush left office, he left us with an enormous debt, a debt that included $700 billion in TARP funds to irresponsible and wreckless banks and financial institutions, and it was a bailout he told congress they must hand over. Before he won office, Barack Obama voted "YES" to the urgent "request," as did his opponent, John McCain. Considering that John McCain's party overwhelmingly voted "NO" to the first bailout bill, HR 3997 (Repulican House members registered 133 nays), is there any point in questioning that his "YES" vote was a symbol of his devotion to the status quo, and his devotion to big money interests, onsidering the fact he was running for president with less than two months to go.

Speaking conspiratorily, one could suggest that the financial bailouts were timed perfectly in regards to when congress voted on the bill, ultimately determining which side got the votes of the paper economy. In light of the bill's original failure, one could go further in suggesting that the Republicans lost the 2008 election in part to it's original denial of the financial bailout, despite their presidential candidate siding with the finanicial institutions and an unsustainable economy. Shortly after the bill failed, on Oct 3, 2008, NPR reported: "The U.S. House has reversed itself and given final approval to a giant economic bailout bill. The measure - revised, re-framed and expanded - passed comfortably by a vote of 263 to 171. It attracted 26 more Republicans and 32 more Democrats than last Monday night." Well, you can make your own conclusions, but I'm one who stands by the assertion that it wasn't a persuasion derived from "left and right" politics. It is more likely that 26 republicans and 32 democrats were attracted to the bill via "top and bottom" politics.

The issue of health care reform and the debate over its manner embodies more of the same politics. Proponents of the bill, HR 3962, which passed just over a month ago, have received large contributions from the health care industry. Some people included on this list of recipients are Max Baucus and Barack Obama. A report by the SunLightFoundation.com, with data from OpenSecrets.org, revealed that "Lobbying disclosure filings for the first quarter of 2009 reveal that five of Baucus' former staffers currently work for a total of twenty-seven different organizations that are either in the health care or insurance sector or have a noted interest in the outcome. The organizations represented include some of the top lobbying organizations in the health sector: Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Researchers of America (PhRMA), America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Amgen, and GE Health Care. The former staffers turned lobbyists include two former chiefs of staff, David Castagnetti and Jeff Forbes, and one former legislative assistant, Scott Olsen. Other former staffers working with health care portfolios include Angela Hoffman and Roger Blauwet." The report went further when telling that "In 2008, Baucus received $1,148,775 from the health sector and $285,850 from the insurance sector. For his career he has received $2,797,381 from the health sector and $1,170,313 from the insurance sector. Our current president, Barack Obama, is "number two in contributions from the pharmaceuticals and health products industry," according to SourceWatch.org.

Despite the bill's difficult passing with a weakened public option (a generous description considering that the idea was intended to cover 130 million and was drained to cover, at most, 10 million), the Los Angeles Times reported some unsurprising news today, at least in quality, not specifics, in an article entitled "Senate Democrats reach healthcare deal on 'public option'." In the second paragraph, Janet Hook and Noam N. Levey report that "Under the compromise developed by a group of conservative and liberal Democrats, the Senate legislation would no longer include a new government-run insurance program, or "public option," for Americans who do not get coverage through their employers." The alternative to the public option is now a government contract with a nonprofit insurer. Furthermore, "The tentative deal faces an uncertain fate in the full 60-member Democratic caucus, which will have to remain largely united if Democrats are to overcome a GOP-led filibuster and pass a bill before Christmas." Once again, we're not dealing with true ideology. It's pure top and bottom politics. It's the politics of the people vs. big business. It's clearly top and bottom politics when the so-called "left" of American politics is urging its so-called "defenders" and "progressives" to push through leglislation that doesn't even resemble the kind that actually puts the needs of all Americans on the table.